Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Union of India vs. S. Ranjit Samuel

Civil AppealDecided 24 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 1625-1627 of 2021

Background

The respondent employees, working as Junior Engineers/Lower Division Clerks, had already received one financial upgradation under the government's Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, 1999. They completed 24 years of service (which would have qualified them for a second upgradation under the ACP Scheme) between January and April 2009: right around the time the government replaced the ACP Scheme with the Modified ACP (MACP) Scheme via an office memorandum dated 19 May 2009, made retrospectively effective from 1 September 2008. The employees argued they were entitled to the more favourable ACP Scheme benefits since their eligibility arose before the new scheme was notified, and they won before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Madras High Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court allowed the government's appeals, relying on its own recent three-judge bench decision in Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority vs. Narender Kumar, which held that mere eligibility for a benefit under an old policy does not create a vested right: the employer still had to formally review and grant the benefit, and until that happened there was only an expectation, not an entitlement. The Court held the government was free to make the new MACP Scheme retrospective from 1 September 2008 (an executive policy decision), and since these employees became eligible only after that date, they had to be considered under the MACP Scheme and not the more generous ACP Scheme. It set aside the Tribunal's and High Court's orders and dismissed the employees' original applications.

Lesson Learnt

Employees do not acquire a permanent "vested right" merely by becoming technically eligible for a benefit under a policy. If the government replaces that policy (even retrospectively) before the benefit is actually granted, employees are generally bound by the new scheme.

Union of India vs. S. Ranjit Samuel – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware